Don't expect to watch a Cronenberg or Haneke when you watch a superhero movie like The Avengers, it's an action dumb flick and nothing else and complaining about it is very useless, I enjoyed it for what it is like I enjoy drinking cheap beer and fast food.

_________________

CHAIRTHROWER wrote:

Metantoine, what does "fam" stand for, "familiar"? Like a witch's familiar?!...Have you been playing d & D again?...

Not complaining that the Avengers itself is lacking substance, rather that superhero movies have all become really fucking terrible, and have no actual heroic substance, everything is just "we're good, they're bad" - hell even in Batman, which is supposed to be "darker and edgier and morally grey" ends up not being the latter.

It's kinda lame, is all. I just want them to be like comic books, probably a bad thing to want out of comic book movies...

Don't expect to watch a Cronenberg or Haneke when you watch a superhero movie like The Avengers, it's an action dumb flick and nothing else and complaining about it is very useless, I enjoyed it for what it is like I enjoy drinking cheap beer and fast food.

Sorry Frog, but 'Toine is right. Yeah you can go on a rant about the general dumbing down of movies and mainstream culture, but it's happening baby. There will always be deeper and better made flicks, but blockbusters like this ain't them. And just look at how much money it made.

_________________

theposaga about a Moonblood rehearsal wrote:

So good. Makes me want to break up with my girlfriend, quit my job and never move out of my parents house. Just totally destroy my life for Satan.

Just because it's a superhero flick doesn't mean it has to suck balls. It could at least have decent writing and acting that's worth two shits. Or an interesting premise, imaginative characters, innovative concepts, etc. You know...something. I primarily watched it because people seemed to be saying that it was like some sort of creme de la creme of superhero cinema and I wanted to see what that could even mean, if anything. Batman movies are definitely better but still nothing to get hard over.

I thought Red State sucked. Could've been a good premise, yeah, but it was just done so poorly...every plot element brought in was thrown out equally as fast, and that Michael Parks speech at the beginning that goes on for like 20 minutes of the movie or something? Awful. I get what it was trying to do but that didn't make me like it any better, personally.

I remember the casual conversation about bringing some of that good old sweet tea between the Michael Parks character and the daughter during the shootout as being particularly dumb.

Not complaining that the Avengers itself is lacking substance, rather that superhero movies have all become really fucking terrible, and have no actual heroic substance, everything is just "we're good, they're bad" - hell even in Batman, which is supposed to be "darker and edgier and morally grey" ends up not being the latter.

It's kinda lame, is all. I just want them to be like comic books, probably a bad thing to want out of comic book movies...

Is it possible you have unrealistic expectations? Not attacking you but trying to understand.

Like, when you say "superhero movies have all become really fucking terrible"... compared to when exactly? Every live-action representation of superheroes before something like 1999, on TV or in movies, has irredeemably sucked balls. They were either pure shit or just campy stuff. It just wasn't viable at all. The stuff that came closest was the Superman and Batman movies in the 80s and 90s... and that just doesn't cut it, IMO.

It's only around the turn of the new millennium (technology helping) that the tools are there to even make worthwhile attempts. It's such a recent phenomenon that cinema has not caught up to that fact because superhero movies are still listed in "action", "fantasy" or "sci-fi". Superhero universes have their own idiosyncrasies and on website such as imdb, should probably be listed as their own thing.

Also, I don't understand your other comment. On one hand, it seems you want more mature movies with grey areas, on the other hand, you wish it was like the comics. Well, all these popular superhero franchises of today draw when a huge body of work, and sometimes it was morally grey (particularly in the 90s) but overall, they became thriving franchises precisely because they were lighthearted fun with little moral ambivalence. There's been a LOT of "we're good, they're bad" stuff in those comics I can assure you. It's probably why they survived so well

I think the biggest problem some people have with comic adaptation movies is that people have built their own idealized versions of Batman, or Spider-man, Hulk, etc... based on a selective bibliography. That's really cool, but you can't really expect directors and writers to be inspired by the same selection, nor can they sum up a rich history of comic books into 2-hour films.

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

Not complaining that the Avengers itself is lacking substance, rather that superhero movies have all become really fucking terrible, and have no actual heroic substance, everything is just "we're good, they're bad" - hell even in Batman, which is supposed to be "darker and edgier and morally grey" ends up not being the latter.

It's kinda lame, is all. I just want them to be like comic books, probably a bad thing to want out of comic book movies...

In terms of being like the comic books, they're pretty much toe to toe. Comic books by and large don't have many layers or characters with complex issues to tackle. Unless you're wanting something like Watchmen, you're going to get overblown action with humour and suspense in a predictable way.

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pmPosts: 7869Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:58 pm

OneRodeToAsaBay wrote:

I saw the full version of A serbian film. The more I thought about it when I first saw it, the angrier I got. I absolutely hated it in all its pretentiousness.

A Serbian Film is pretentious? Funny, it simply strikes me as unnecessarily grotesque, but in no way would I call it pretentious. Care to explain, ORTAB? I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion.

Regarding recent films inspired by comic books; Avengers is awesome, and so is Nolan's Batman trilogy (though I'm a relentless Nolan fanboy, so take my opinion of his work with the full contents of a salt shaker), and the newest Spider-Man film blows the previous right movies out of the water. I'm yet to see Dredd, but I plan to, as I have heard mostly good things about it. And, to sumarize, the best comic-book-turned-movie is Sin City. Period.

_________________

droneriot wrote:

Infant Annihilator are well known to sell their albums on Iron Maiden - Killers tapes that they recorded their stuff over. And they're in the process of figuring out how to burn over pressed Beherit and Darkthrone CDs.

The Avengers is really awesome actually. No. it did not have any deep seated real world themes or allusions - it was pretty much a glorified, big-money action movie to the extreme, with Whedon's usual themes of man's triumph over the divine heavily evident. But the writing was great for what it was going for. Very tight and well put together, tying together each film leading up to it with Whedon's usual great character writing, and the film sustained interest for well over 2 hours. The fact that it was built up by like four other films and was tied up so concisely and tightly was a masterwork of conceptual design. And it doesn't hurt that I really enjoy superhero stories. It was a pretty basic good versus evil story, yeah, but it also had first rate acting, some dynamite action sequences, and a great sense of weight and presence that blows any other Marvel movie out of the water.

And the newest Spider-Man is great because of Andrew Garfield's performance as the lead alone. The rest of the movie is incredibly well done itself, but his performance, as well as Emma Stone's, makes it a cut above the regular superhero movie.

This. I think more than anything you've got to at least like superhero stories to begin with. It's not like The Dark Knight where it tries to reinvent the genre, very rarely will you encounter instances of this.

I really enjoyed Andrew Garfield's performance in Never Let Me Go, an excellent and fairly unique sci-fi by Mark Romanek, director of the classic One Hour Photo. I just haven't been sold on another round of Spider Man films, especially considering it's yet another origin story.

A question regarding the Avengers: How did Bruce Banner suddenly managed to control Hulk after the fall? Was it explained poorly and I missed it, am I supposed to be initiated with the character and just know, or what?

I think we've had this discussion earlier and as Empyreal mentioned...'Avengers' isn't meant to please our movie watching sensibilities where we could actually have serious discussions on the plot or the acting. The target audience was primarily kids people seeking shitloads of action and effects and that's that in my opinion. A movie that even a cretin could enjoy. I was on the fence for 'The Amazing Spiderman' because at one end the movie actually had a strong story line explaining the birth of Peter Parker but at the same time, it disappointed me in terms of the villain. He wasn't menacing enough for me to take the movie even half seriously.

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pmPosts: 7869Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:52 pm

Bede wrote:

A question regarding the Avengers: How did Bruce Banner suddenly managed to control Hulk after the fall? Was it explained poorly and I missed it, am I supposed to be initiated with the character and just know, or what?

From what I understand, that has to do with the ending of the Hulk movie starring Edward Norton.

You know, the part where he's meditating, and suddenly he opens his eyes. You can see that they have become bright green, and that he's smiling, implying that he is now able to at least control his transformation to some degree.

Empyreal wrote:

The Avengers is really awesome actually. No. it did not have any deep seated real world themes or allusions - it was pretty much a glorified, big-money action movie to the extreme, with Whedon's usual themes of man's triumph over the divine heavily evident. But the writing was great for what it was going for. Very tight and well put together, tying together each film leading up to it with Whedon's usual great character writing, and the film sustained interest for well over 2 hours. The fact that it was built up by like four other films and was tied up so concisely and tightly was a masterwork of conceptual design. And it doesn't hurt that I really enjoy superhero stories. It was a pretty basic good versus evil story, yeah, but it also had first rate acting, some dynamite action sequences, and a great sense of weight and presence that blows any other Marvel movie out of the water.

And the newest Spider-Man is great because of Andrew Garfield's performance as the lead alone. The rest of the movie is incredibly well done itself, but his performance, as well as Emma Stone's, makes it a cut above the regular superhero movie.

I agree with all of this, especially the part concerning Andrew Garfield. He really brought the Peter Parker persona to life. I also like the fact that they showed him as a very skinny guy, unlike Maguire, who was more than a bit too ripped to be believable as an awkward teenager.

This sounds bloody great. Been a long time since I checked anything resembling the old school action flicks, and hearing that Dredd has a lot to do with them is awesome.

_________________

droneriot wrote:

Infant Annihilator are well known to sell their albums on Iron Maiden - Killers tapes that they recorded their stuff over. And they're in the process of figuring out how to burn over pressed Beherit and Darkthrone CDs.

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pmPosts: 7869Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:53 pm

I'm sure there's no comparison. The Stallone movie blows chunks.

_________________

droneriot wrote:

Infant Annihilator are well known to sell their albums on Iron Maiden - Killers tapes that they recorded their stuff over. And they're in the process of figuring out how to burn over pressed Beherit and Darkthrone CDs.

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pmPosts: 7869Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:59 pm

Subrick wrote:

But the Stallone movie taught me the proper way to pronounce "LAAAAAAAWRH!"

Ugh, one of the choppiest lines ever delivered in professional filmmaking

_________________

droneriot wrote:

Infant Annihilator are well known to sell their albums on Iron Maiden - Killers tapes that they recorded their stuff over. And they're in the process of figuring out how to burn over pressed Beherit and Darkthrone CDs.

Damn straight. Dredd is just an honest, balls to the wall action flick. It's like dystopian Die Hard. After the massive letdown that was the Dark Knight Rises, seeing Dredd was... cleansing for the soul. Such a pity that it flopped so badly, there were plans for a follow up, possibly with the Dark Judges, probably won't happen now.

People can say "The Avengers isn't for people who want to go into a movie and have serious discussions afterwards," and to a degree they'd be right. But it's also not just a dumb action movie either. It's big, it's epic, etc, but Joss Whedon also puts in some complexity with the morals of SHIELD and the issue of how much information Nick Fury was withholding from the team - cool, espionage-like stuff. There was a lot going on there. Every character had stuff going on and, while the film was too crammed to really delve too deep, it was enough to add layers to the film, and create tension between characters, and relationships between them that worked in the context of the world the movie created. While I wouldn't say it was complex, it was well done and shouldn't just be mistaken for a silly shallow action movie, because the writing was a cut above that. Whedon definitely catered to the audience a lot and didn't get to show off his usual complexity and mastery of intricate themes, metaphors, etc. here, but he says he wants to do something different for the next one, and I'm looking forward to that.

Quote:

Damn straight. Dredd is just an honest, balls to the wall action flick. It's like dystopian Die Hard. After the massive letdown that was the Dark Knight Rises, seeing Dredd was... cleansing for the soul. Such a pity that it flopped so badly, there were plans for a follow up, possibly with the Dark Judges, probably won't happen now.

Well, for starters it's much better. And there's no Rob Schneider. There are no satiric elements like in the comics (never read them, but so I've heard), and neither is it as plain goofy as the Stallone movie. It's a rather straight-forward, brutal, no-nonsense action flick with Karl Urban being a badass Dredd (DAT JAW) and Lena Headey delivering a solid, malicious villainess. "dystopian Die Hard", as BaloroftheEvilEye put it is pretty accurate. It's an entertaining and well-made movie. Period. Pity it didn't earn back its budget.

Such a pity that it flopped so badly, there were plans for a follow up, possibly with the Dark Judges, probably won't happen now.

Eh, not everything needs a sequel and these days it's a rarity to have something stand alone. I think you should be glad they're not milking it with another director and a different writer like what usually happens, into something that resembles a parody.

There were good things about the Stallone movie. The hive city looked great, as did the ash wastes and the hovercraft/ bikes. The mutant gang was fun, and god damned if I've ever seen a cooler robot in a movie than the ABC robot in there. That thing ruled. Of course it could have been much better but it's got more replay value than many of Stallone's movies just because of the stuff I mentioned. I'm probably watching the new Dredd tonight and I'm expecting it to kick ass, I hope the futuristic city atmosphere is conveyed even better in this one.

_________________

Xlxlx wrote:

I very much doubt anyone here is interested in rectal penetration, myself included.

I saw the full version of A serbian film. The more I thought about it when I first saw it, the angrier I got. I absolutely hated it in all its pretentiousness.

A Serbian Film is pretentious? Funny, it simply strikes me as unnecessarily grotesque, but in no way would I call it pretentious. Care to explain, ORTAB? I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion.

All of the following is from Wikipedia.

Quote:

The director and writer, Srđan Spasojević and Aleksandar Radivojević, have made statements to the effect that their creation is a parody of modern politically correct films made in Serbia which are financially supported by foreign funds.

On the question, why 'Srpski Film' for the title, Radivojević answers: "Srpski Film is also a metaphor for our national cinema - boring , predictable and altogether unintentionally hilarious which throughout our film to some extent is commented on and subtly parodied." Similarly, Radivojević describes Serbian cinema as "...pathetic state financed films made by people who have no sense or connection to film, but are strongly supported by foreign funds. Quality of the film is not their concern, only the bureaucratic upholding of the rule book on political correctness."

According to Spasojević, the character of Vukmir is "an exaggerated representation of the new European film order ... the Western world has lost feelings, so they’re searching for false ones, they want to buy feelings."

In another interview Spasojević is quoted as saying "my shocking 'A Serbian Film' denounces the fascism of political correctness." Questioned by the Croatian media on whether the violence depicted deals with crimes committed by Serbian soldiers during the Yugoslav Wars, Spasojević answered: "'Srpski Film' does not touch upon war themes, but in a metaphorical way deals with the consequences of postwar society and a man that is exploited to the extreme in the name of securing the survival of his family."

"As much as we try to deal with our life in this film allegorically, and with the corrupt political authorities that govern it, we are also dealing with today’s Art and Cinema and the corrupt artistic authorities that govern them in a similar manner here. The films that preach and enforce political correctness are the dominant form of cinematic expression today. Nowadays in Eastern Europe you cannot get a film financed unless you have a pathetic and heartwarming ‘true story’ to tell about some poor lost refugee girls with matchsticks, who ended up as victims of war, famine and/or intolerance. They mostly deal with VICTIMS as heroes, and they use and manipulate them in order to activate the viewer’s empathy. They make a false, romanticized story about that victim and sell it as real life. That is real pornography and manipulation, and also spiritual violence – the cinematic fascism of political correctness."

Spasojević and Radivojević also express that the film is not exclusively dealing with Serbian issues but issues in the "New World" in general. "We didn’t want to make a hermetic picture that would deal exclusively with our local tragedies, but to tell a story with global overtones, because Serbia is merely a reflection of the ways of today’s New World in general, as it tries to imitate it and fails miserably. Contrary to the peerless politically correct facade of the New World, it’s still a soulless devouring machine for killing every small freedom – of art and free speech – we have left, destroying everything different in its path."

It's just an exploitation film made to shock people. There's nothing symbolic about it. It's a damn effective shock movie, but that's all it is.

_________________

Earthcubed wrote:

I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

Heckler (2007) 4.5/5David Cross, Tom Green, Joe Rogan, George Wallace, Dave Attell, Louie Anderson, Lewis Black, Uwe Boll, Robert England, Christopher Hitchens, Pauly Shore, Henry Winkler, Dom Irrera, John Lovitz, Nick Swardson, Carrot Top, Harland Williams, Carrie Fischer, Kathy Griffin, Jeff Ross, Gilbert Godfried, and Rob Zombie among many others star in this giving their opinions and stories about hecklers. Interlaced throughout the film are clips of Jamie Kennedy confronting hecklers at his shows as well as critics who wrote mean reviews for his films (mostly Malibu's Most Wanted and Son of the Mask). Well-edited and a lot of interesting information from a great selection of a somewhat diverse group entertainers. A few of the more well-known videos are shown as archival footage; Ronald Reagan and Jim Everett being examples of this, but the footage of Michael Richardswas not (though a computer re-enactment of it was). Fun, watch with The Aristocrats.

Last edited by Star-Gazer on Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

I will third, or fourth Dredd. That movie is amazing. The slow-motion sequences are breathtaking. Literally. I fucking stopped breathing during a couple and had to catch my breath. It's the total romanticism of violence during those sequences, but it's violence in the most pure form. It's just... beautiful. The rest of the movie is great as well. It reminds me a lot of Punisher: War Zone: ultra-violent and super relentless.

I just saw Gangster Squad today. I enjoyed it. The plot wasn't anything special, but I liked the acting and was surprised by the large amount of humor. I thought that Gosling and Brolin did excellent jobs along with the guy who played Mickey.

Dredd is indeed a modern action classic in the vein of old Schwarzenegger or Willis goodies (it especially reminded me of Die Hard). I loved how the plot couldn't have been more straightforward and every action sequence, which is pretty much every scene, was greatly satisfying. I also loved the fact that Dredd never takes off his helmet. Karl Urban may have done some crappy movies here and there, but he's still a 100% certified badass, and this is probably his best role.

I just saw Gangster Squad today. I enjoyed it. The plot wasn't anything special, but I liked the acting and was surprised by the large amount of humor. I thought that Gosling and Brolin did excellent jobs along with the guy who played Mickey.

He's named Sean Penn and he won 2 best actor Oscars... Kinda weird that you can name Gosling or Brolin but not Penn.

_________________

CHAIRTHROWER wrote:

Metantoine, what does "fam" stand for, "familiar"? Like a witch's familiar?!...Have you been playing d & D again?...

Tonight, I saw that The Doom Generation was on TV, so I decided to watch it.

I love that movie. It's so, so stupid, but it's a part of my teenage development, and I can't help but feel nostalgic about it.Not really a movie I'm comfortable watching with my stepdad, who was also in the room with me, though.

The desire to watch it (despite my having it on video) trumped the awkwardness factor... but, god, that was so awkward...

There were good things about the Stallone movie. The hive city looked great, as did the ash wastes and the hovercraft/ bikes. The mutant gang was fun, and god damned if I've ever seen a cooler robot in a movie than the ABC robot in there. That thing ruled. Of course it could have been much better but it's got more replay value than many of Stallone's movies just because of the stuff I mentioned. I'm probably watching the new Dredd tonight and I'm expecting it to kick ass, I hope the futuristic city atmosphere is conveyed even better in this one.

Also, LLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW! Armand Assante was fucking nuts in that one; the film is worth watching if only for his presence. I'll be watching Dredd in the next few days as well.

Texas Chainsaw 3d- complete waste. This had some of the dumbest characters I've seen in a horror movie in years. Apparently Lionsgate wants to make this into a franchise, but I dont this will make it past the sequel, considering this one went way down. I bet the next one flops.

I watched Les Misérables yesterday because of lack of anything to do. Anyway, to be honest, I found it highly uncomfortable in the first 15 minutes with them singing the entire dialogue, but I got used to it I suppose. The few who probably couldn't digest it left the show mid-way. Overall, the movie had more highs than lows. I thought Russel Crowe was a big misfit with him doing the singing. Laughable in fact. They could've added a break to the monotonous singing of the dialogue at some instances. Also, Amanda Seyfried is a talentless wench, they surely could've done better with the casting for her role. But apart from those criticisms of mine, I think Hugh Jackman was born for Broadway and such roles. The guy is so fuckin' versatile. Remember the time he hosted the Oscars with Anne Hathaway? Pity she had only a supporting role in LesMis. I also really enjoyed Sasha Baron Cohen's and Helena Bonham Carter's roles as the raggedy couple who controlled the beggars in the city. Another notable, albeit a small role, performance was of that of Gavroche. The kid exuded so much energy on screen. There were quite a few scenes which were powerful and moving. Those tipped the balance for me in favor of the movie.

HARD TARGET! I should write all of this in caps because that's the kind of movie it was. Jean-Claude Van Damme murdering everyone with his mullet, spinning kicks, explosions, beautifully put together Jon Woo gun fights, Lance Henrikssen being a brilliant villain (way better than any JCVE movie bad guy) and that dude who plays Imhotep in the Mummy films not being too shabby either. The story is simple, the action is badass. As one of my friends said, pretty much the only Van Damme movie one can enjoy with no sense of irony.

_________________

theposaga about a Moonblood rehearsal wrote:

So good. Makes me want to break up with my girlfriend, quit my job and never move out of my parents house. Just totally destroy my life for Satan.